Green v. Warden , 61 F. App'x 78 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7751
    GEORGIA GREEN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    WARDEN; MEDICAL STAFF OF ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
    DETENTION CENTER; DOCTOR JANI; DOCTOR RIVERA,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
    02-1742-PJM)
    Submitted:   March 20, 2003                 Decided:   March 25, 2003
    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Georgia Green, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Georgia Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on her 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) complaint. We dismiss
    the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Green’s notice of
    appeal was not timely filed.
    Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
    district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the
    appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal
    period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).             This appeal period is
    “mandatory and jurisdictional.”            Browder v. Director, Dep’t of
    Corrections, 
    434 U.S. 257
    , 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.
    Robinson, 
    361 U.S. 220
    , 229 (1960)).
    The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May
    30, 2002.      Green’s notice of appeal was filed no earlier than
    November 6, 2002.*     Because Green failed to file a timely notice of
    appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,
    we dismiss the appeal.      We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts    and   legal   contentions   are    adequately   presented   in   the
    *
    For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
    appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
    have been delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court.
    See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
     (1988).
    2
    materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-7751

Citation Numbers: 61 F. App'x 78

Judges: Hamilton, Per Curiam, Traxler, Williams

Filed Date: 3/25/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023